Grand Culture Mod (Thread 2: Continuation of Finellach's)

[Calgacus]

I don't think Flemish (or Fleming) is the way to go, as it was only one dialect of Old Frankish, along with Luxemberger and Brabanter, Dialects in Liege, Calais, Ypren and elsewhere.

Language is not the only consideration. I'm not very persuaded by language divisions I have never seen refered to in contemporary texts. It's ok to divide Germany into 3 or 4 sections, but then you have one problem. Germany was a linguistic continuum, those divisions had much less meaning on the periphery than "German," which is all-inclusive.

On the other hand, I am very swayed by the fact that Flemings (Flamingi) are only rarely listed as Germans (T(h)eotonici or Alemanni) in texts. Saxons for the most part are the inhabitants of the Duchy of Saxony. I needn't say that Franci refers to French by CK times. In Greek, German-Latin, French and English texts, Germans are one people; divisions amongst them were irregular, and no more meaningful than in Italy.

For the moment, Mad King James, I'm going with Flemings and Frisians. Discussion on this issue is not closed, but please believe me, I do want to get on with the maps. If some sound and managable scheme emerges, I will adopt it. In the mean time, I'm getting on with the maps.

 

[Enravota]

btw most Greek text refer to all Westerners with "Franks", but i do not think it is prudent to merge French + German, 'cause some scholar in Constantinople couldn't see the difference.

the problem here (as in most other cultures) is to decide whether it was a dialect group or destinct culture? were Upper Germans less different than Lower Germans, than say Catlan and Occitan etc. :wacko:

 

[Mad King James]

Language is not the only consideration. I'm not very persuaded by language divisions I have never seen refered to in contemporary texts. It's ok to divide Germany into 3 or 4 sections, but then you have one problem. Germany was a linguistic continuum, those divisions had much less meaning on the periphery than "German," which is all-inclusive.

On the other hand, I am very swayed by the fact that Flemings (Flamingi) are only rarely listed as Germans (T(h)eotonici or Alemanni) in texts. Saxons for the most part are the inhabitants of the Duchy of Saxony. I needn't say that Franci refers to French by CK times. In Greek, German-Latin, French and English texts, Germans are one people; divisions amongst them were irregular, and no more meaningful than in Italy.

For the moment, Mad King James, I'm going with Flemings and Frisians. Discussion on this issue is not closed, but please believe me, I do want to get on with the maps. If some sound and managable scheme emerges, I will adopt it. In the mean time, I'm getting on with the maps.

This logic is anything but logical, but do what you want I guess.

 

[Mad King James]

btw most Greek text refer to all Westerners with "Franks", but i do not think it is prudent to merge French + German, 'cause some scholar in Constantinople couldn't see the difference.

Who is proposing merging French and German??

the problem here (as in most other cultures) is to decide whether it was a dialect group or destinct culture? were Upper Germans less different than Lower Germans, than say Catlan and Occitan etc. :wacko:

Catalan and Occitan are somewhat mutually intelligable, whereas Low German is largely incomprehensible to a high German speaker.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

whereas Low German is largely incomprehensible to a high German speaker.

Thank god I am dutch then I can comprehend both low (platduutsch) and high (deutsch) german.

But a speaker of only high german would also have problems comprehending Bavarian, Swabian, Kölsch, Pfälzisch or any other sub-german language/dialect.

 

[Mad King James]

Thank god I am dutch then I can comprehend both low (platduutsch) and high (deutsch) german.

But a speaker of only high german would also have problems comprehending Bavarian, Swabian, Kölsch, Pfälzisch or any other sub-german language/dialect.

Er... Swabian IS German, the Swabian dialect is the basis of modern German, much as East Midlands Anglish formed the basis of modern English, and Kolognish and Pfalsish are VERY close to Swabian. There is a difference between Middle German and High German (IE Swabian and Bavarian) but it is much less marked than that between Swabian/Bavarian and Frankish/Saxon, which are whole other languages.

Modern Dutch is not the same as Frankish, as modern Dutch is a compromize language between the Netherlands' Swabian, Frankish, Frisian and Saxon speakers, which is probably why so many EU interpreters are Dutch or Belgian

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I've said it before in some other thread, but I think expanding Dutch to Low German / Saxon / Whateveryouwanttonameit is good if there would be clearly different name lists for Germany and Low German.

PS. If English Saxon is gone, you could have Saxon and Teutonic for more Medievalish flavour.

 

[Mad King James]

I've said it before in some other thread, but I think expanding Dutch to Low German / Saxon / Whateveryouwanttonameit is good if there would be clearly different name lists for Germany and Low German.

PS. If English Saxon is gone, you could have Saxon and Teutonic for more Medievalish flavour.

I just posted one.

 

[Enravota]

Who is proposing merging French and German??

exactly, because someone, somwhere didn't see any difference, doesn't mean there isn't any.

 

[Mad King James]

exactly, because someone, somwhere didn't see any difference, doesn't mean there isn't any.

So ... you agree with me... right?
I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Er... Swabian IS German, the Swabian dialect is the basis of modern German, much as East Midlands Anglish formed the basis of modern English, and Kolognish and Pfalsish are VERY close to Swabian. There is a difference between Middle German and High German (IE Swabian and Bavarian) but it is much less marked than that between Swabian/Bavarian and Frankish/Saxon, which are whole other languages.

Well I personally know people from Schwaben (Swabian) and Cologne (Kölsch) and the way they speak is nothing like the standard High german. and the are also not very alike since they really have trouble understanding each other.

Kölsch sound more like dutch and platduutsch then with Swabian.

And that is from personal knowledge not from some internet study MKJ.

But then again this internet study says the same thing.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery...gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&linktext=Swabian language

True Swabian, with its nasal intonations and grammatical adjustments to common words, is known for being difficult for speakers of Standard German to understand. As well, Swabian contains vocabulary that differs altogether from Standard German (eg. 'jam' in Standard German is Marmelade while in Swabian it becomes G'saelz).

EDIT
I think we are going of topic here

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I just posted one.

Well, last time I said what I just said, it was said to me that rulers in Low Saxon regions used same or very similiar names as Germans. Though then again, when Scandinavian names differ by a single letter or two on average....

So I mean, if it's clear that medieval Saxonian "George" called himself "Jürgen" while Swabian "George" called himself "Georg" and similiar situations exist with other names too, then imo there is call for Low Saxon, what ever it's gonna get named.

 

[Mad King James]

Well, last time I said what I just said, it was said to me that rulers in Low Saxon regions used same or very similiar names as Germans. Though then again, when Scandinavian names differ by a single letter or two on average....

So I mean, if it's clear that medieval Saxonian "George" called himself "Jürgen" while Swabian "George" called himself "Georg" and similiar situations exist with other names too, then imo there is call for Low Saxon, what ever it's gonna get named.

...which is the case. In which case you agree with me as well. However Calgacus is rather obstinate in this regard and I think he won't change his opinion now no matter what I say.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

...which is the case. In which case you agree with me as well. However Calgacus is rather obstinate in this regard and I think he won't change his opinion now no matter what I say.

Bah, don't be like that. Calgacus is very reasonable compared to many others and like he said, he's open to be convinced.

 

[Mad King James]

Well alright, maybe I'm making a tempest of a teapot here. Let's see if I can make something rather convincing.

 

[Calgacus]

Thanks Byakhiam.

New 1066 Map.

New cultures provisionally introduced, a few province switches but not much else. Moan, whinge and tirade your little hearts out.

I will work on the other two while you do so.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Well I don't like the culture name Teutonic but since it is not a popularity poll that isn't very important.

But why not rename Hungarian to Maygar(ian) ?

And why not rename Italian to Italic, since it represents more then just Italians ?


But first thanks for your hard work on the map.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Make Permic Finns as Lappish.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Brabant, Liege and Hainaut should be added to Flemish. Flemish language evolved from dialects from Flanders and Lower Brabant. Also Hainaut was Flemish and was in union for most of the time first with Flanders and then with Holland...they certainly weren't Frankish/French.

Podlasie should be Rus or Polish...this was an oversight by me so it shold be fixed.
Sudovia should be Prussian.

Also what is the difference between East and West Norse?! This should be one culture.

Sardinian really shouldn't be there but if you have tags to spare...
Also Italian should be renamed to Latin because it's a modern term...it's like merging Spanish languages and call them Spanish. Latin is better.

Also removing Moravians/Slovaks from Nitra is greatly ahistorical.

Btw. if you decided to rename German to Teutonic you should also rename English to Anglian.

 

[Mad King James]

Geez you decided to go ahead with Turkish/Turkic instead of Oghuz/Oghur/Kipchak?